A PREFERENCE-BASED APPOINTMENT SCHEDULING PROBLEM WITH MULTIPLE PATIENT TYPES

We consider the appointment scheduling process of a physician in a healthcare facility. There are multiple patient types with different priorities in this facility. The facility observes the number of appointment requests from each patient type at the beginning of each day. The facility decides on how to allocate the arriving appointment requests to available slots over the booking horizon. Each type of pa- tient prefers a day in the booking horizon with a specific probability. We model this system with a constrained Markov Decision Process to maximize the infinite-horizon expected discounted revenue subject to the constraint that the infinite-horizon ex- pected discounted rejection cost is below a specific threshold. Patients have only one preference for the appointment day. Each patient is either given an appointment on the day he/she prefers or the appointment request of that patient is denied. We prove that the optimal policy is a randomized booking limit policy. To solve the model, we use Approximate Dynamic Programming (ADP) techniques. We conduct numerical experiments and compare the results obtained with ADP techniques with some benchmark policies. 

___

  • Ahmadi-Javid, A., Jalali, Z., and Klassen, K. J. (2017). Outpatient appointment systems in healthcare: A review of optimization studies. European Journal ofOperational Research, 258(1), 3–34.
  • Bowser, D. M., Utz, S., Glick, D., and Harmon, R. (2010). A systematic review of the relationship of diabetes mellitus, depression, and missed appointments in a low-income uninsured population. Archives of psychiatric nursing, 24(5), 317–329.
  • Cayirli, T., and Veral, E. (2003). Outpatient scheduling in health care: a review of literature. Production and operations management, 12(4), 519–549.
  • Feldman, J., Liu, N., Topaloglu, H., and Ziya, S. (2014). Appointment scheduling under patient preference and no-show behavior. Operations Research, 62(4), 794–811.
  • Gocgun, Y., and Puterman, M. L. (2014). Dynamic scheduling with due dates and time windows: an application to chemotherapy patient appointment booking. Health care management science, 17(1), 60–76.
  • Gupta, D., and Denton, B. (2008). Appointment scheduling in health care: Chal- lenges and opportunities. IIE transactions, 40(9), 800–819.
  • Gupta, D., and Wang, L. (2008). Revenue management for a primary-care clinic in the presence of patient choice. Operations Research, 56(3), 576–592.
  • Magerlein, J. M., and Martin, J. B. (1978). Surgical demand scheduling: a review. Health services research, 13(4), 418.
  • Parizi, M. S., and Ghate, A. (2016). Multi-class, multi-resource advance schedul- ing with no-shows, cancellations and overbooking. Computers and Operations Research, 67, 90–101.
  • Patrick, J., Puterman, M. L., and Queyranne, M. (2008). Dynamic multipriority patient scheduling for a diagnostic resource. Operations research, 56(6), 1507–1525.
  • Powell, W. B. (2011). Approximate dynamic programming: Solving the curses of dimensionality. John Wiley and Sons.
  • Puterman, M. (1994). Markov decision processes. John Wiley and Sons.
  • Saure, A., Patrick, J., Tyldesley, S., and Puterman, M. L. (2012). Dynamic multi-appointment patient scheduling for radiation therapy. European Journalof Operational Research, 223(2), 573–584.
  • Sennott, L. I. (1991). Constrained discounted markov decision chains. Probability in the Engineering and Informational Sciences, 5(4), 463–475.
  • Sugiyama, M. (2015). Statistical reinforcement learning: modern machine learning approaches. CRC Press.
  • Sutton, R. S., and Barto, A. G. (2011). Reinforcement learning: An introduction. Truong, V.-A. (2015). Optimal advance scheduling. Management Science, 61(7),1584–1597.
  • Wang, and Fung, R. Y. (2015). Dynamic appointment scheduling with patient preferences and choices. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 115(4), 700–717.
  • Wang, and Gupta, D. (2011). Adaptive appointment systems with patient prefer- ences. Manufacturing and Service Operations Management, 13(3), 373–389.